If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

 

[james bond]

In a nutshell is young earth creationism and some evolution from the view of the scientific method.

Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably interpreted by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

• The first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by God.
• The theory of evolution is at odds with scientific evidence. Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: theory of evolution and creationism).
• Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.[11]
• Many young earth creationists (including those at Creation Ministries International and CreationWiki) assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
• The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.
• The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

 

[forkup]

In a nutshell is young earth creationism and some evolution from the view of the scientific method.

Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably interpreted by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

• The first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by God.
• The theory of evolution is at odds with scientific evidence. Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: theory of evolution and creationism).
• Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.[11]
• Many young earth creationists (including those at Creation Ministries International and CreationWiki) assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
• The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.
• The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

And still you haven't answered ANY of my objections, tell me a reason why radiometric dating is consistent? If it is fundamentally flawed. I'm online so you can make your case directly.

 

[james bond]

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp RD being done in a different light.

 

[BreezeWood]

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

.

(Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)

evidence for the mechanism used during the process of evolution that allow for controlled change - and that transition is not required but that the stored process can be activated at its conclusion to create from one parent to an entirely different (new) offspring that then is self reproducible discarding the previous characteristics of its parent.

.

 

[forkup]

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...





Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them? And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

 

[james bond]

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

 

[forkup]

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????

 

[BuckToothMoron]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The lack of an explanation from science does not prove the existence of God. That is a huge logical fallacy. Ancient cultures had rain gods, sun gods, etc, because they didn't understand what made rain or sunshine. if any unexplained event was proof of God, then what happens to that God when science does explain it?

 

[MaryL]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

 

[james bond]

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????

They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date. Again, it shows their preconceived notions.

 

[james bond]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

No process made God. God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.

 

[MaryL]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

No process made God. God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.

Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.

 

[forkup]

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????

They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date. Again, it shows their preconceived notions.

I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.

 

[james bond]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

No process made God. God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.

Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.

That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding. The creator is the best explanation as its alternative, random naturalistic processes, is lacking. The timeless and ageless qualities being applied to ourselves are difficult to comprehend in this life unless you have faith and believe in another. You only live twice.

 

[BreezeWood]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

.

Why bother?

if your Spirit make it to the Everlasting - why not have your Spirit be there when only one side Triumph of Good vs Evil is allowed admission - satan is dead is a clue - The Almighty is simply in charge. there are as many god's as may make that rank and for yourself maybe just start as a labourer ... good luck

.

 

[james bond]

Not to my satisfaction, but whatever. I've answered most of your questions if not all. We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error? Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results. If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid. What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error. Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years. Not only that, there was soft tissue inside. (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.) Why won't you accept that as valid? The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine. While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying. You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????

They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date. Again, it shows their preconceived notions.

I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.

They aren't equal or equivalent. They only are made to fit a range which you call the same. The others are discarded. Look up how calibration is done with RD companies. I answer your questions, but you have no answers for mine.

 

[james bond]

I do not think I'll be getting answers to my questions from the evos and atheists here anytime soon. Basically, the evos can't prove the age of the earth because radiometric dates of millions or billions of years are not true ages. The creation scientists have ways to show the age of the earth without making erroneous assumptions in radiometric dating, some of wihich has been discussed already such as not enough sediment on the sea floor, too few supernova remnants, not enough Stone Age skeletons, Ayers Rock (secular geologists cannot explain), Guy Bethault experiments, Mt. St. Helens and more.

History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.1 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.2

1. Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64-89 (January 1975).
2. Dritt, J. O., Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73-78

 

[BreezeWood]

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?

No process made God. God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.

Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.

That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding. The creator is the best explanation as its alternative, random naturalistic processes, is lacking. The timeless and ageless qualities being applied to ourselves are difficult to comprehend in this life unless you have faith and believe in another. You only live twice.

.

That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding.

Boomerang Theory

at the moment of Singularity all matter is expelled at a finite angle - the angles trajectory will in the very distant future return all matter to their point of origin at the same time - reproducing the compaction that will begin the process for a new cycle to begin.

the celestial bodies will disappear from the night sky at the apex of deflection only to begin reemerging as their angles bring them back together again.

.

 

[forkup]

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.

Huh? I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened? It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted. They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????

They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date. Again, it shows their preconceived notions.

I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.

They aren't equal or equivalent. They only are made to fit a range which you call the same. The others are discarded. Look up how calibration is done with RD companies. I answer your questions, but you have no answers for mine.

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
This was in the last link. So when you say I didn't answer you mean "I didn't read it".